s1rrah
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2007
- Posts
- 2,640
- Likes
- 188
My brief two weeks with the Shure SE846 IEM's and how they compare to the Shure SE535 (and ultimately, the agony of having to send them back)
Shure IEM's have been my mainstay daily listening choice for quite a few years now. I bought my first pair of Shure IEM's back in 2007, a pair of E4C's that I (amazingly) found for $100.00 at my local circuit city.
From the get go, the Shure house tendency towards neutrality and not over emphasizing any particular frequency really sat well with both my inner music producer, as well as my inner listener. I'm not a fan of exaggerated or unnaturally affected music in regards to any frequency range, really and if given my druthers, I would always have gear that tends towards neutral but that still responds well should I decide to use equalization.
Therefore, at least in regards to IEM's, I've always stuck with the Shure brand as the engineers (and ears) there, those behind the design process of their headphones, IEM's and even their microphones (I own several), seem most concerned with a natural, mostly unaffected presentation.
From the E4C's, I rather quickly moved on to the SE500's, then the SE530's and then the SE535's. I've enjoyed them all immensely and for mostly the same consistent reasons: solid performance, nothing exaggerated, clean detailed presentation and excellent build quality (not to mention their excellent service department).
Here come the SE846
---------------------------------------------------
And so when the SE846 was released, especially with the accompanying “hoopla” around the considerable amount of new technology that went in to the production of the IEM (in-house engineered balanced armature drivers, a miniature ported sub woofer of sorts with 4 inches of acoustic pathway, etc.) … admittedly, I was over the moon and just hell bent on the need to try them.
But when I saw the price of $1000.00, I realized this was an item that most likely would not end up as part of my regular, daily arsenal. And, for all intents and purposes, it has not. Something about spending $1000.00 on an IEM just throws some internal checks and balances that have simply not allowed me to actually try (or buy) a set.
But lately, I was lucky enough to get to spend a couple weeks with a brand new pair of SE846 IEM's and as a long time and quite devout user of the various 500 series IEM's, I figured I'd take a moment to write a bit about my experience with them (okay, truth is, I ordered them from Amazon Prime, solely to demo/review them … along with an Ibasso DX90 for a source … knowing that I'd return both; thank you Amazon Prime for being so damn awesome).
Let there be no quibbling; the SE846 is a very solid upgrade over the SE535
---------------------------------------------------
When listening to non-equalized music, The SE535's have always been just a tad to much on the “flat” side of things, a bit too “middle of the road,” a bit to “straight-laced.” This is fantastic from a music production point of view as it allows me to hear music for what it is and without any affectations brought on by the IEM itself (should I care to have a “clinical” listen to any given sort of music). But in daily use, I have always insisted on using equalization to bring the default, somewhat subdued presentation of the SE535 more in to focus in regards to what I enjoy insofar as recreational music listening is concerned. It's true as well, as you've most likely read or heard, the SE535 has fairly rolled off, stunted highs that I can only imagine were decided upon to make the IEM most palatable with the most sorts/genres of music. But in the final analysis, I enjoy a bit more sparkle than the SE535's naturally provide and too, I like a bit more sub bass and bass presence in general. Therefore, I've always used equalization with them. Currently, I use a Cowon J3 with it's formidable Jetaudio EQ to fine tune the SE535's and prior to the Cowon, a Teclast S:flo 2 with an Arrow amp's bass/treble boost.
And so the primary difference I would note between the SE535 and the SE846 is that the SE846 requires NO equalization to sound “right” to my ear. In fact, at all default/non-EQ'd settings, the SE846 sounds about like my SE535's with equalization applied. And yet, for various other reasons discussed below, the SE846 still sounds markedly more impressive for several other reasons.
SE535 vs SE846 … a general breakdown
---------------------------------------------------
The SE535's, in general, sound a bit more “flat line” or “homogenized” than do the SE846's. I think this has everything to do with the rather dramatically better instrument isolation/separation that the four drivers of the SE846 provide. The two IEM's are without a doubt from the same basic tuning camp, they are both somewhat neutral and neither overly accentuate any given frequency; with the SE846, I never found myself thinking, “wow, those highs are too bright,” or … “that bass is totally unnatural (think Bose)” … but Shure really took things to the next level with the SE846's and they are a fantastic successor to the ubiquitous SE535 if only for the fact that they solve two of the most obvious issues with the SE535 (to my ear, mind you): first, the rolled off highs and second, the lack of a visceral sub bass.
I just wish they'd have released them at a closer price point to the SE535's instead of basically doubling the price, but that's just my limited income and other interests (that require my money) talking.
But it's true. Take every criticism you've heard regarding the SE500 series IEM's and just imagine them all rectified. That's what the SE846 brings to the table. It's not just the superior bass performance of the SE846 (which is significant), it's the high frequency presence, the sound staging, the instrument separation and micro detail retrieval, it's everything really. The improvement over the SE535, really is that significant of a thing. I have listened to the various 500 series Shure IEM's nearly every single day for 4 to 6 hours a day and for the past six years; I am intimately acquainted with them and the above comments are made with a good deal of confidence. The SE846 is a real evolutionary step away from the Shure SE535's.
But as mentioned, they definitely hail from the same sonic camp...
The one area I think the two IEM's are most similar is in regard to mid range frequencies. Upon first listening to the SE846, I was very happy to hear that Shure decided to stay with the (my opinion) utterly brilliant, somewhat forward and very present take on mid range that just about all of their headphones/IEM's are known for. I like my bass and I like my highs but I think somebody once said that the music is in the mid range and I for one, would tend to agree. The SE846 mid range is nearly indistinguishable from the SE535 mid range, if not just a tad more refined around the edges. Couldn't be more happy about that and the huge improvements in overall frequency retrieval and separation make the SE846 almost a perfect headphone for me.
Lows
---------------------------------------------------
And as most every review will mention, the bass performance of the SE846 is rather astonishing. However the Shure design team came up with that ingenious (and gorgeous) sub woofer-like “porting” system, whereby they give the bass frequencies, literally, four inches of metallic path to trace before exiting the tiny IEM's sound tubes, is beyond me but I can say they've worked a minor miracle with it as the bass performance is the best I've heard from any IEM.
It is not an overwhelming, huge, constantly present bass like one might hear in some of the “bass head” cans out there on the market; unless the particular track calls for it, you will never even know such potential is dormant there, but should any given track need it? The bass comes and it comes in just that amount that the track/recording calls for and is always in perfect relation to the high frequencies and the mid range frequencies. That last bit is perhaps the most astonishing facet of the SE846, the fact that at any volume, from the subtlest of settings to the loudest, the SE846 remains absolutely well behaved, with everything in it's place. The bass never bleeds into or drowns out the highs/mids and the mids, though generally always the backbone of the Shure IEM sound (any of them), never dominate in a way that seems outside the requirement of the given track/recording. I sat one day for over an hour just turning the volume way down and way up, marveling at how in the world they kept the relationship between highs/mids/lows so consistently perfect no matter how loud or soft the volume became, truly a feat.
But the bass is ridiculously good and miles beyond anything the SE535 is capable of. I consistently use equalization to give my SE535's just that little bit of extra something at both ends of the frequency spectrum as they are just so “flat line” that at times I find them to be a bit boring … not so with the SE846, though. Straight out of the Ibasso DX90, with no equalization, the SE846 are pretty much perfect sounding to this guys ear and I had no need or desire to equalize them in the slightest.
Highs
---------------------------------------------------
Another quality often discussed regarding the SE535 is the obviously rolled off high frequencies. I don't think it is debatable at this point, either for reasons of sounding the best with the most types of music or otherwise attempting to make them non-fatiguing, the SE535's are designed with a rather pronounced “roll-off” of the upper high frequencies. This isn't altogether bad as they can be easily massaged with a decent equalizer if one prefers more sparkle (I do); should one have a player with a decent equalizer (think Cowon J3) then that can be remedied; or worse case scenario? Should one be stuck with an exceptional player that has a pretty bad equalizer (think Ibasso DX90), then it can become vexing.
But again, as a person who has lived with the SE535's for many, many years and many thousands of listening hours, I can happily say that the SE846's are much more resolving and have far more sparkly, more detailed high frequencies. Everything about the high frequencies is more resolving and more detailed.
I would put a section here discussing the mid range but suffice it to say, the SE846 come with the same, rather pronounced and “confident” mid range presentation that the SE535's and most other Shure headphones count as hallmark. I for one was very pleased to hear this as I'm a big fan of a leading mid range and nothing else can really be said about it other than the fact that the SE846 presents that same mid range in an even more detailed, articulate manner (most likely having everything to do with more drivers).
Otherwise?
---------------------------------------------------
- Sound staging is a bit more out of the head than the SE535's … the increased number of drivers and perhaps the design of the housings, give one the impression of the music coming from a slightly greater distance (in a pleasant way).
- The SE846 is a noticeably more detailed/resolving IEM than the SE535, presenting music with a much greater, more discreet separation among the various instruments in any given bit of music; this is not a subtle thing, either. There is more “silence” between the various players and overall, one finds one's self more intimately experiencing the sonic landscape. An interesting thing is that as I would switch from the SE846 back to the SE535, I had a very intense and nagging desire to keep turning the SE535's volume up, thinking that if I did so, I would be able to hear the same sort of details I was getting via the SE846; but increasing the volume thru the SE535 just didn't assuage that nagging itch; in the end, I realized it was simply a matter of the SE846 being a much more resolving listen and there was no issue or discrepancy with the volume setting when switching between the two IEM's. Apparently, the number of drivers and overall design differences inherent to the SE846, really do make a very positive difference.
- Using the Shure “black olives” the noise isolation was identical between the two IEM's (and quite remarkable, as always with that particular tip).
- The fit of the SE846 was approximate with that of the SE535's, even though the SE846 is without a doubt a bit larger of an IEM; still, I had no issue with the fit (my ears are what you might call “medium” sized).
- The build quality of the SE846 is something out of an Engineering or Industrial Design periodical, I mean it's a freakishly gorgeous bit of gear to look at with a magnifying glass. … the cables are ridiculously tough and well put together (microphonic free, BTW) and overall the entire package screams quality.
- I did not experiment with the various nozzles that reportedly can be used to change the sound; I found the default, “neutral” setup to be so perfect that I didn't have any desire to try the other options and so I can't speak towards that.
- I did not test the SE846 with any sort of amplifier; they sounded brilliant straight from my Cowon J3 and even better, straight out of the Ibasso DX90.
About the Ibasso DX90
---------------------------------------------------
I was also impressed with the DX90; it is not a dramatically more capable DAP than the J3 but sans EQ? It's certainly a more resolving, more refined player than the venerable Cowon J3. The DX90 has noticeably better sound staging, more extended and well defined bass/high frequencies and in general just sounds more hi fi than does the J3 when comparing both on stock settings.
The Cowon J3 can go a long way towards improving sonics by subtle implementation of certain of it's EQ effects, especially with the SE535's which can be made to somewhat exactly approximate the stock, non EQ'd sound of the SE846 … but had I the income and the choice? I would much rather listen to the completely non-equalized DX90/SE846 combo over the equalized J3/SE535 combo. I'd always rather have a naturally performing bit of gear rather than one that needs slight mathematical affectations to sound the best to my ear. But for now, I'll remain rather happy with the J3/SE535 set up as it's the only thing that makes sense financially to me at the moment.
But make no mistake about it, I consider the DX90 a much better sounding player than the Cowon J3. But then again, I appreciate the Jet Audio capabilities of the J3 and also it's unbelievable battery life of 50+ hours (and mine is a few years old at least).
A few songs...
---------------------------------------------------
Here's just three songs that I found very useful in getting to the primary differences between the SE535 and the SE846. You'll note the lack of any classical or chamber or jazz tracks here but that's just because I'm tired of typing and didn't want to post too many songs on my server. Needless to say, I'm a huge fan of classical, jazz and other genres and the SE846 are equally phenomenal with all.
Each of these tracks are hosted on my personal Google Drive server and can be downloaded by clicking the “LISTEN” link. The file (.flac) won't play in line but you can download it and load it locally...
David Byrne
Album: Lead us not into temptation
Song: Locks & Barges
> LISTEN <
Specifically, the time from 00:35 secs thru 01:00 mins …
With the SE846, the light cymbal taps throughout are far more defined, having a nicer/more distinct edge to the metallic hit, the SE535's highs are not as good here and the cymbal taps are not as refined and isolated from the rest of the mix. Overall the SE846 has noticeably better separation of instruments and sound staging. Also of note, at exactly 00:46 secs, there is a very nice sub bass hit that comes through very pronounced and distinct with the 846. Also, the subsequent and repeated sub bass hits that come right after are also more distinct and discernible than with the SE535. With the SE535, that same sub bass hit is definitely there but it's certainly pushed back further in the mix and doesn't come across with near as much presence as with the SE846. This track is a great example of how the SE846 really gets the bass right when it's recorded right in the first place. Other tracks from other artists almost sound “muddy” or “flubby” but in retrospect and after hearing better recorded music, it becomes obvious that these qualities are inherent to the recording and not the 846's rendering of it.
Alice in Chains
Album: MTV Unplugged
Song: Got me wrong
> LISTEN <
This entire record should be in your collection; it's hands down one of the best live recordings I've ever heard and is a great reference bit. The acoustic guitars are particularly nice with a very clean edge to the sound (they obviously were using new strings) … and the SE846's far better capture this high frequency nuance than do the SE535's; the SE535's aren't bad by any means but the SE846's are just a far more resolving IEM across the board, not just in regards to bass … but also, quite a bit in regards to high frequencies. The bass track in this song (and the entire record) is also particularly sweet. Very clean, very well mixed and with the SE846's, absolutely discreet from the rest of the instrumentation and vocals. The separation of sounds is rather remarkable with the 846 IEM and with this song and countless others, I kept finding myself amazed at how well they isolated players and instruments. The SE535 is also a remarkable IEM but it just can't approach the same level of finesse and sonic “vigor” of the SE846's.
London Grammer
Album: If you wait
Song: Hey now
> LISTEN <
This is the last song I'm going to talk about specifically. You can believe it, from a guy who has spent nearly six years with the Shure 500 series IEM's … all of the differences discussed in regards to these three tracks hold for every other bit of music I listened too. All genres, across the board, were improved with the SE846. But this song I wanted to mention for a couple reasons … first, the sexy sexy mid range of the female vocalist; she has a “throaty,” delicious sort of tenor tonality which is unusual for a woman and it's quite nice to hear via the SE846's. I would make comparisons but none come to mind. And two … especially the astonishing sub bass retrieval that hits precisely at 01:21 mins and continues throughout the rest of the track. Really, it's astonishing how well the SE846's render this bass line … precise, deep and super clean and resolved. And what's even more crazy is that as the volume is increased well past safe listening levels, the bass retrieval maintains it's perfect balance with the rest of the frequencies … thru the volume increase, the mids maintain their place as the definitive element of the track and the bass and highs stay uber resolved, never distorting and perfectly behaved in relation to the mid range. It's a rather nice track.
Why I won't be keeping this $1000 dollar pair of headphones
---------------------------------------------------
First and foremost, I simply cannot drop a grand on a bit of gear that only has a 2 year warranty.
Despite my appreciation of Shure Inc. … their microphones and headphones alike, both of which I have used extensively over the past two decades … I still feel that such a device as the SE846's should come with a warranty that more syncs with the rather heady price tag. Again, I have nothing but love for Shure and their business methodology; for chrissake, they sent me a completely free pair of brand new SE530's once ... simply because I wrote an honest letter to their service department, but that's another thread …
But the fact remains, a 2 year warranty is basically the same as Shure saying, “Hey .. we think that these might very well fail after about two years of regular use and if so, your either going to have to buy a new pair or pay for repairs.” And, for a $1000.00 pair of inner ear monitors, this is simply unacceptable for me as a consumer. I'll just EQ my SE535's, thank you very much.
Something I didn't write anything about in the above little essay is that throughout my listening session, I was also swapping in a set of Koss Portapros for even further comparison and I have to say, they are damn near the sonic equal of the SE846's; and, to my ear, a decent bit more exciting of a listen than the non-equalized SE535's. Very similar bass/high freq performance as the SE846's but without the lovely isolation of the latter, and of course not nearly as discreet/portable. And if folks feel that paying $1000 bucks for the 846's is better than $40 bucks for the Koss Portapros or even $500 bucks for the SE535's (both of which I consider fair) … then more power to them. Technically and to make sure the above comparison is understood, the Koss Portapros are not nearly as detailed as the SE846; further, the highs and lows of the Koss' are tipped just so much more towards the “unnatural” … but they are coming close to the sonic performance of the SE846 and so at $40.00 and change, and with a lifetime warranty? It makes dropping a grand on the SE846's sort of hard to justify (even though I still want them real bad) …
But again, can't say it enough … the Portapros, even at a mere $40 bucks, still have a life time warranty (which I've used more than once). Hell, even the $1000 dollar Koss ESP-950 kit comes with a life time warranty, which I've also used on more than one occasion.
Ultimately?
Shure has done a genuinely remarkable thing with the design/engineering behind the SE846 and I certainly feel the price is okay for such work and especially the resulting performance; if you have the coin to spare and want pretty much the best sonics one can find today in the market of universal fit IEM's? Then buy the Shure SE846 immediately and feel good about buying them. I certainly would if I could and I might still, anyway ... if I can just find somebody who might want to buy one of my kids (just kidding, I don't have any kids but selling one still comes to mind and as I try and juggle responsibilities in an attempt to justify buying the SE846's for real)
If the SE846 IEM's had a life time warranty? I would buy them happily, immediately and without hesitation. Hell, even if the warranty was five years instead of two, I'd still buy them. Shiza! Just look at Blendteq blenders! They build a remarkable product as well (Blendteq is like the Shure SE846 of blenders!) and they back it with a very respectable 8 year warranty and those only cost about $500.00 bucks! But I digress ..
Much of this last bit of playful vitriol is just my annoyance at not allowing myself to keep the SE846's (really, I'm bugged to hell). It's been a couple weeks since I returned them to Amazon and every time I put my SE535's in, I'm immediately reminded of how superior of an IEM the SE846's are.
The pain is real...
Further, the sonic differences between the SE535 and the SE846, though quite significant, simply do not warrant a $1000.00 upgrade when considering my other interests that require financing and my relative income level as well. I really enjoy the SE535's and combined with a clean, capable EQ, they can be made to quite nearly approximate the general frequency performance of the SE846, though the better separation among frequencies and the better isolation of individual players that are hallmarks of the SE846 sound, simply cannot be matched by the SE535 with any sort of hardware or software equalization; it is a simple matter of better physical engineering and design (great job, Shure!!).
So yes. I will pine for the SE846's for some time and yes, I sorely wish that Shure had released them closer to the price point of the SE535's or even so, a much better warranty term when priced at their current $1000.00.
But at the same time I'm hugely pleased with Shure's innovation and the quality of the product that they chose to make and introduce to the audio market, both for those of us making the music and for those of us who listen.
Keep up the great work, Shure. I remain a fan....
...
